UNEP strategic priorities in Europe

UNEP Strategic Priorities in Europe

Maps & Graphics

© Zoï Environment Network ISBN 978-2-940490-10-3

Zoï REPORT 2012 This report was prepared by: Otto Simonett Language editing: Geoff Hughes Maps and Graphics: Matthias Beilstein Design, Layout and Cover: Carolyne Daniel

2

UNEP Strategic Priorities in Europe Maps and Graphics

The United Nations Environment Programme 2011–2013 strategy focuses on six thematic priorities – climate change; resource efficiency; disasters and conflicts; environmental governance; harmful substances and hazardous waste; and ecosystem management. As part of its effort to come to terms with these priorities, UNEP engaged Zoï Environment Network to create thematic maps for use as objective tools for priority setting in the European region.

This assignment – as simple as it may look – confronted Zoï with many challenges in terms of both content and cartographic display.

• Finding contents: The careful selection of contents and the building of appropriate map legends for each priority area was an essential part of the map-making. Some UNEP priority areas are more straightforward and comprehensible to the outside world (climate change; disasters and conflicts; environmental governance) compared to other highly complex or ambiguous ones (resource efficiency; harmful substances and hazardous waste; ecosystem management).

• Reduction: With the goal of having one map on one page for each priority area, we had to discard information that did not fit, or risk overloading the map and making it unreadable. Some of this discarded information included highly interesting indicators.

• Consistency: One of our guiding principles was that each map should have consistent data for the entire region that it covered. This narrowed our options considerably, and we had to exclude some interesting data that exist for only one country or subregion – pollution hot spots in Russia, for example.

• Mixing apples and oranges: In an ideal conceptual world, environment assessments follow the DPSIR (Driver, Pressure, State, Impact, Response) model. Our maps sometimes display drivers, pressures, state and impact in a mixed manner. The next round of priority setting will deal with the responses by the countries and the international community.

• No consultations: To make the maps as objective as possible we had no consultations with UNEP and its responsible officers. We used this approach to avoid a bias towards the current project portfolio. The mapping exercise at the UNEP Regional Office for Europe staff retreat in June was informal, and the exercise outputs did not flow into the maps, but such a consultative exercise would be an excellent method to derive priorities based on the current maps.

• Geographic coverage beyond borders: While the main focus is on the UNEP European region, we have nevertheless mapped indicators – where available – in Northern Africa, the Middle East and some Asian countries. We believe this approach communicates a broader picture and will help UNEP plan beyond – at times artificial – regional borders.

• Graphical supplements: Where we have reached the cartographic limits of one-page maps, we have used bar charts and other graphical means to display relevant supplementary information.

• Present (as opposed to past or future): We have used as up-to-date information as possible to display the current status. There are – except for climate change – no scenarios or predictions for future trends, nor have we used historical data or time series.

Despite these challenges we have succeeded in producing the six thematic maps, which in our opinion can be very useful for UNEP priority setting. As a next step, we suggest mapping the various actors and activities as a way of providing a base for assessing UNEP niches.

3

A r c t i c

Hamburg Amsterdam and London Rotterdam

Rhine delta Alps

Venice

Mediterranean basin Istanbul

Map produced by ZOÏ Environment Network, August 2011

Alexandria

UNEP thematic priorities - 1. Climate change More precipitation

Sea-level rise concerns and affected major cities

Impact on mountain regions

Negative agricultural changes

Present permafrost

Less precipitation

Changes in ecosystems

Forest fires

Melting of glaciers

Permafrost in 2050

Climate change hotspot

Median September pack ice edge 1979-2000

CO2 emissions 2009 389 823

250000

Progress in impact assessment, adaptation options and policy response Moving towards implementing adaptation Advanced impact assessment, but slow development of policy responses

200000

Early in advanced stages of impact assessment Greenhouse gas emissions and Kyoto targets 2008

150000

On target 100000

Not on target

¹ CO2 emissions of Belgium and Luxembourg Source: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007 (→ www.ipcc.ch); National Snow and Ice Data Center (→ http://nsidc.org) Gagnon-Lebrun and Abrawala, 2008 (→ www.???.xxx)

no data

no data

no data

no data

no data

Croatia

Liechtenstein

Slovenia

Estonia

Latvia

Iceland

Lithuania

Azerbaijan

Ireland

Slovakia

Norway

Bulgaria

Switzerland

Denmark

Sweden

Turkmenistan

Portugal

Hungary

Austria

Finland

Belarus

Greece

Romania

Belgium¹

Czech Republic

Algeria

Uzbekistan

Egypt

Netherlands

Turkey

Kazakhstan

Spain

Ukraine

Poland

Italy

France

Iran

United Kingdom

Russia

Germany

50000

UNEP Strategic Priorities in Europe Maps and Graphics

1 Climate change

1 cLiMatE chaNgE This map is a straightforward illustration based on the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, showing potential impacts in the greater European region – areas with changing precipitation, ice, snow and permafrost; changes in ecosystems; negative impacts on agriculture; forest fires; and the “hot spots” in the Arctic, the Mediterranean and the mountain regions where drastic impacts are to be expected and are already visible.

The other side of the equation – drivers and responses – are illustrated in the graphic underneath the map: countries ranked by their total CO2 emissions and “smiley faces” for two indicators – “reaching the Kyoto target” and “Progress in impact assessment, adaptation options and policy response”. The latter is a composite indicator using the national communications to UNFCCC as the main source.

The map and the graphic clearly show where action is needed: first of all where climate change impacts are most severe, mainly at the extremes of Europe – the Arctic North, the Mediterranean South and the high altitudes.

Other entry points are indicated where the faces are not smiling about the Kyoto protocol targets or about general progress regarding assessments and policy implementation.

Discarded: climate neutral countries; the highly interesting index of vulnerability to climate change (World Bank 2009), available only for the East.

5

Svalbard (Norway)

Iceland

Norway

Finland Sweden

United Kingdom

Ireland

Mongolia

Netherlands Denmark

Russia

Lithuania

Belgium

Latvia

Germany

France Switzerland

Portugal

Estonia

Belarus

Poland

Czech Republic Austria

Kazakhstan Slovakia

Slovenia

Ukraine

Hungary

China

Romania

Spain

Croatia Uzbekistan F.Y.R.O.M.*

Italy

Georgia

Turkmenistan

Turkey

Greece Algeria

Tajikistan

Bulgaria

Tunesia

Afghanistan Syria Iran

Lebanon

Libya Egypt

Map produced by ZOÏ Environment Network, October 2011

Israel

India

Iraq

Jordan

Pakistan

UNEP thematic priorities - 2. Resource efficiency Number of enterprises (companies) with certified environmental management systems (ISO 14001*)

Energy efficiency 2007/2008

Total resource extraction* in 2007 (in kilotonnes)

Primary energy intensity (in kilogram oil equivalent per 2005 PPP dollar)

* ISO 14001 provides the requirements for an environmental management system

* Extraction of biomass, fossil fuels and minerals

0.4

1 500 000

0.2

1 000 000

500 000

0.3

0.1

Spain

Italy

Switzerland

Romania

Norway

Israel

Bulgaria

Tunisia

Turkey

Ukraine

Germany

Czech Republic

Egypt

Syria

Slovenia

Luxembourg

Hungary

Slovakia

Cyprus

United Kingdom

Netherlands

Greece

Pakistan

Ireland

Jordan

Finland

Lithuania

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Denmark

Croatia

Azerbaijan

Sweden

Poland

Russia

France

Portugal

Estonia

Kazakhstan

Belarus

Morocco

Source: World Energy Council (→ www.worldenergy.org/publications/energy_efficiency_policies_around_the_world_review_and_evaluation/1230.asp); www.materialflows.net; Das Umweltbundesamt (UBA) (→ www.umweltbundesamt.de)

Austria

Serbia and Montenegro

Liechtenstein

Belgium

Latvia

Algeria

UNEP Strategic Priorities in Europe Maps and Graphics

2 Resource Efficiency

2. rESoUrcE EFFiciENcY This map was probably the most difficult one to grasp and took several iterations to produce. In the published version we put emphasis on the spatial pattern of resource use and efficiency in wider Europe: a simple indicator of resource extraction is overlaid by energy efficiency.

A real innovation is the graphical display of the ISO140001 indicator, simply showing the number of enterprises with an environmental management certificate as an indication of the private sector commitment to environmental issues, a first step in the direction of a green economy.

This map shows a clear East-West divide, with the former Soviet Union still highly visible – abundant natural resources historically available to be wasted, while in the market economies in the West, resources were something to be handled with care.

Discarded: ecologic footprint as a measure of human demand on the Earth’s ecosystems (seems to be too much linked with simple economic indicators, although there are exceptions).

7

Greenland (Denmark)

Svalbard (Norway)

Iceland

Piper Alpha

Norway

Northern Ireland Ireland

United Kingdom

Flixborough

Buncefield fire Aberfan Torrey Canyon

Lux.

Poland Czech Republic

Switzerland Austria Seveso Slovenia Croatia Italy

Belarus Kazakhstan

Chernobyl Slovakia Ukraine Ajka Transnistria Hungary Baia Mare Romania Moldova Serbia

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Kosovo

Kyrgyzstan China Abkhazia

Bulgaria

Tajikistan

Chechnya

Georgia F.Y.R.O.M.*

Algeria

Armenia

Kashmir

Turkmenistan

Azerbaijan

Nagorno-Karabakh

Turkey Tunesia

Uzbekistan

South Ossetia

Albania

Montenegro

Morocco

Russia

Rus. Lithuania

Enschede Germany

France Sandoz

Toulouse

Kyshtym disaster

Latvia

Netherlands Belgium

Spain

Estonia

Denmark

Amoco Cadiz

Basque Country Portugal

Finland

Sweden

Greece

Afghanistan Northern Cyprus Cyprus Lebanon

Libya

Palestinian Territories Egypt Israel

Map produced by ZOÏ Environment Network, August 2011

Iran

Syria

Pakistan Belochistan

Iraq

Jordan

UNEP thematic priorities - 3. Disasters and conflicts Major industrial disasters

Conflict 2008 or later Conflict between 1989 and 2007

Nuclear

Tensions, frozen conflicts

Mining

Insurgencies or riots 2010 or 2011

Energy

Nuclear power plants

Chemical

Total affected people by natural and industrial disasters since 1990 1 000 000

100 000 10 000

Czech Republic

Poland

Bosnia and Herzegovenia

Croatia

Ireland

Romania

Germany Norway

Belgium

Moldova

Albania

France Montenegro

Switzerland

Bulgaria

Serbia

United Kingdom

Uzbekistan

Russia Slovakia

Belarus

Kazakhstan

Lithuania Austria

F.Y.R.O.M. Portugal

Greece

Hungary

Italy

Kyrgyzstan

Ukraine

Spain

Tajikistan

Oil spill

Netherlands

Tribal areas

Source: Centre for the Study of Civil War at Peace Research Institute Oslo (→ www.prio.no/CSCW/Datasets/Armed-Conflict); Wikipedia article “List of industrial disasters” on 12 August (→ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_industrial_disasters); EM-DAT: The OFDA/CRED International Disaster Database, Université Catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium (→ www.emdat.be)

India

UNEP Strategic Priorities in Europe Maps and Graphics

3 Disasters and Conflicts

3. DiSaStErS & coNFLictS This map is somewhat retro, showing where conflicts and natural and industrial disasters have occurred in the last 20 years, but also showing the location of nuclear power plants. The conflicts, however, may be pointing towards the future as well: in areas with “frozen” conflict, such as the Southern Caucasus, the probability of future conflicts is much higher than elsewhere. The disasters are more complex in that they may strike everywhere. This possibility suggests that it may be interesting to have an indicator of “preparedness”, but we found no adequate proxy to be mapped.

The diagram gives a more sober – and grim – picture of the number of people affected by disasters.

Responses will be needed in the fragile areas, the whole EECCA region and in particular in the South. The Arab spring is happening in Europe’s neighbourhood and will also need responses from Europe even if strictly speaking – in terms of UNEP administration – the Arab world does not belong to the European region.

Discarded: the ENVSEC map published earlier in the year (already part of the response).

9

Svalbard (Norway)

Greenland (Denmark)

Iceland

Norway Finland

Luxembourg Netherlands

Ireland

Mongolia

Estonia Denmark

United Kingdom

Belgium Germany

Sweden

Latvia

Russia

Czech Republic Lithuania Rus. Poland

Portugal

Belarus France

Kazakhstan

Switzerland Austria

Slovakia Hungary

Spain

Slovenia

Romania Serbia

Croatia Bosnia and Italy Herzegovina Montenegro

Morocco

Albania

Ukraine

Kyrgyzstan

Moldova Uzbekistan

Tajikistan

Bulgaria Georgia F.Y.R.O.M.*

Armenia

Turkey

Turkmenistan

Azerbaijan

Tunesia

Algeria

China

Greece

Afghanistan

Lebanon Cyprus Syria

Libya Map produced by ZOĂ? Environment Network, August 2011

Egypt

Israel

Jordan

Iran Iraq

Pakistan

UNEP thematic priorities - 4. Environmental governance GNI per capita, PPP (current international $)

European Union (EU)

$ 50 000

Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS)

$ 25 000

Arab League

$ 10 000

Shanghai Cooperation Organisation

$ 1 000

* The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

Number of ratified international environmental conventions and protocols** Five or more ratifications between 2007 and 2011

Ten or more ratifications between 2007 and 2011

40 30 20

Netherlands Hungary Luxembourg Sweden Germany Norway Czech Republic France Croatia Finland Slovakia Spain Switzerland Austria Belgium Bulgaria Lithuania Denmark Estonia Slovenia Romania United Kingdom Italy Latvia F.Y.R.O.M.* Albania Cyprus Poland Greece Liechtenstein Portugal Serbia Belarus Moldova Ireland Ukraine Monaco Armenia Azerbaijan Bosnia and Herzegovina Malta Russia Iceland Kazakhstan Georgia Turkey Kyrgyzstan Uzbekistan Tajikistan Turkmenistan San Marino Andorra

10

(**) Including the following environmental conventions and protocols: Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments (2004), Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (2001), Convention to Combat Desertification (1994), Convention on Biological Diversity (1992), Biosafety Protocol, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Chane (1992), Kyoto Protocol, Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal (1989), Amendment to Basel Convention, Basel Protocol on Liability and Compensation, Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer (1985), Montreal Protocol, London Amendment, Copenhagen Amendment, Montreal Amendment, Beijing Amendment, Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (1973), Amendment to Article XI, Amendment to Article XXI, Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Easte and Other Matter (1972), 1996 Protocol, Convention on Wetlands (1971), Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (1998), Kiev Protocol, Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes (1992), Amendments, Protocol on Water and Health, Protocol on Civil Liability and Compensation, Convention on the Transboundary Effects of Industrial Accidents (1992), Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context (1991), First Amendment, Second Amendment, SEA Protocol, Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution (1979), Gothenburg Protocol, POPs Protocol, Protocol on Heavy Metals, Sulphur Protocol, VOC Protocol, Nox Protocol, Sulphur reduction by 30% Protocol, EMEP Protocol.

10

Source: Worldbank (→ www.worldbank.org); Europe's environment, The fourth assessment (EEA 2007) and Convention secretariat's websites

India

UNEP Strategic Priorities in Europe Maps and Graphics

4 Environmental Governance

4. ENViroNMENtaL goVErNaNcE Environmental governance is highly correlated with existing regimes or blocs: the European Union (plus the Western non-member countries and countries in varying stages of accession); the Commonwealth of Independent States; and then the countries “in between”, such as Turkey. The Arab league countries are also shown on the map. Another key factor influencing environmental governance is simply wealth, which we display with a straightforward GNI per capita indicator.

In the bar chart we introduce a rating according to the ratification of and adherence to environmental conventions and protocols using data from the convention secretariats.

The EU members and proxies can be regarded as the most progressive with regard to environmental governance. Here the main role of the United Nations could be propagating and mainstreaming good policies and practices worldwide. The poor countries outside the EU should in our opinion be the main target of UNEP activities in Europe. Special attention needs to be given to the immediate neighbours on the south where – with the Arab spring – new opportunities will be emerging.

Discarded: disaggregated data on “International spread of environmental policies” (although in a way very innovative) both because of the complexity and the potential difficulties in communicating the indicators. http://www. eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/international-spread-of-environmental-policies/trend11-3g-soer2010eps/TREND11-3G-environment-policies-spread.eps.75dpi.png/at_download/image

11

Norilsk

Bratsk Russia (123 000 tonnes) Norway Finland Ireland

United Kingdom

Netherlands

Sweden

Denmark

France Luxembourg

Ust-Kamenogorsk

Lithuania

Belgium Portugal

Estonia

Germany

Dzherzhinsk Magnitogorsk

Poland

Czech Republic

Chernobyl Slovakia

Austria

Spain

Ukraine

Romania

China

Slovenia Hungary

Mailuu Suu

Kyrgyzstan

Serbia Italy

Bulgaria Sumgayit Armenia Turkey Greece

India (2006) Israel

Map produced by ZOÏ Environment Network, August 2011

Jordan

UNEP thematic priorities - 5. Harmful substances and hazardous waste Estimated cumulative global usage of PCB’s with 1° x 1° longitude and latitude resolution (tonnes) 10

50

100

Hazardous waste* generation 2008

* Hazardous waste is waste that owing to its toxic, infectious, radioactive or flammable properties poses an actual or potential hazard to the health of humans, other living organisms, or the environment. Hazardous waste here refers to categories of waste to be controlled according to the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal (Article 1 and Annex I). If data are not available according to the Basel Convention, amounts can be given according to national definitions.

10 000

500 5 000

no data Areas of major deposition of lead, cadmium and mercury

1 000

World’s most polluted places

100

Obsolete pesticides 2008 (tonnes) 100 000

50 000 20 000 10 000 5 000 1 000

Source: Norwegian Institute for Air Research (→ www.nilu.no); United Nations Statistics Division (→ http://unstats.un.org/unsd/ENVIRONMENT/hazardous.htm); The International HCH & Pesticides Association (IHPA) (→ www.ihpa.info/how-to-be-involved/how-big-is-the-problem); Meteorological Synthesizing Centre-East (→ www.msceast.org/hms/results_map.html#top); Blacksmith Institute: The World’s Worst Polluted Places, New York 2007 (→ www.blacksmithinstitute.org/wwpp2007/finalReport2007.pdf)

Slovakia Hungary

Tajikistan

Slovenia

Armenia

Czech Republic

Turkmenistan

Kyrgyzstan

Georgia

Romania

Uzbekistan

EU-25 (2007)

Turkey

Azerbaijan

Ukraine

Moldova

Poland

Macedonia

Belarus

Kazakhstan

Bulgaria

Russia (> 100 000 tonnes)

UNEP Strategic Priorities in Europe Maps and Graphics

5 Harmful substances and hazardous waste

5. harMFUL SUBStaNcES aND haZarDoUS WaStE The background map shows a combination of global usage of PCBs (model calculation) and the areas of major deposition of lead, cadmium and mercury to highlight the geographical areas with potentially the highest contamination.

We have also added the few places in the region that are featured on the “World’s most polluted” list from the Blacksmith Institute – Chernobyl, Sumgayit, Dzerzhinsk, Magnitogorsk, Norilsk, Bratsk, Ust-Kamenogorsk and Mailuu Suu. The hazardous waste generation per country is shown with a barrel symbol.

The graphic underneath the map shows a ranking of the countries with regard to their stocks of obsolete pesticides.

Discarded: nuclear waste and decommissioning since these may fall outside the mandate of UNEP and because of consistency concerns regarding the data.

13

Arctic Sea

Scandinavian Mountains

Ural

North Sea

Altai

Baltic Sea

Carpathian Mountains

Alps

Aral Sea

Tien Shan

Pyrenees Karakorum

Black Sea

Caucasus

Atlas Mountains

Alai

Caspian Sea

Pamir

Kopet Dag

Himalya

Pontic Mountains

Mediterranean Sea

Hindukush

Taurus Mountains Alborz Zagros Mountains

Map produced by ZOÏ Environment Network, October 2011

UNEP thematic priorities - 6. Ecosystem management Forest

Sea conventions

Major mountain ranges

Protected areas

River related transboundary agreements

Arid and semi-arid areas

Water stress index* 2010 in percent

Trend in extent of forest 2005-2010

* Water Stress is calculated as the percentage of a country’s territory affected by oversubscription of water resources (100 % = no water stress)

more less

no change

100 % 75 50 25

Austria

Switzerland

Cyprus

Croatia

Luxembourg

Latvia

Macedonia

Malta

Norway

Slovakia

Slovenia

Sweden

Finland

Iceland

Serbia and Montenegro

Belarus

Russia

Denmark

Estonia

Czech Republic

Greece

Lithuania

Poland

Georgia

France

United Kingdom

Portugal

Lebanon

Mongolia

Germany

Romania

Italy

China

Kazakhstan

Kyrgyzstan

Netherlands

Ukraine

Algeria

Hungary

Libya

Iran

Egypt

Iraq

Turkmenistan

Azerbaijan

Pakistan

India

Bulgaria

Spain

Uzbekistan

Morocco

Belgium

Tunisia

Moldova

Syria

Armenia

Israel

Jordan

50 % 25

0

Turkey

0

Source: Protected Planet (→ www.protectedplanet.net); United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (→ www.unep.org); UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre (→ www.unep-wcmc.org); Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy, Yale University and Center for International Earth Science Information Network, Columbia University (→ http://epi.yale.edu); Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010 (→ www.fao.org/forestry/fra/fra2010/en)

Afghanistan

Bosnia and Herzegovina Tajikistan

Albania

0

UNEP Strategic Priorities in Europe Maps and Graphics

6 Ecosystem management

6. EcoSYStEM MaNagEMENt With its myriad connections to land, biodiversity, rivers, oceans and other physical characteristics, ecosystem management may be the most complex of all the priority areas to map. We have generalized as much as possible, but still have a quite loaded map showing forest, protected areas, sea- and riverrelated transboundary arrangements or conventions, mountain areas and arid lands – most prone to desertification – as a background.

The graphic underneath the map shows a ranking of “water stress”, one of the most relevant indicators related to ecosystem management.

Discarded: symbols for the location of the UNESCO and Ramsar sites; indicators developed under the Biodiversity Indicators Partnership, and the Ecosystem Services Indicators, both of which would be highly relevant for this priority area, but at this stage exist only as descriptive catalogues that still need to be populated with data. → http://www.bipindicators.net/ → http://www.bipindicators.net/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=QxjjDuqt2Qk%3D&tabid=155

15

The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) 2011–2013 strategy focuses on six thematic priorities – climate change; resource efficiency; disasters and conflicts; environmental governance; harmful substances and hazardous waste; and ecosystem management. As part of its effort to come to terms with these priorities, UNEP engaged Zoï Environment Network to create thematic maps for use as objective tools for priority setting in the European region. Despite many challenges in terms of both content and cartographic display, Zoï has succeeded in producing the six thematic maps, which are presented here.

Zoï Environment Network • Chemin de Balexert 9 • CH-1219 Châtelaine • Geneva • Switzerland